A true sceptic, following in the path of British biologist Thomas Huxley, is a truth seeker.* A true sceptic will place their search for the truth above all else.
As such a true sceptic will usually be an outsider, because the masses like to agree and are rarely too concerned with the truth.
Indeed if we accept, as Mr Huxley explained, that the brains of apes and humans are fundamentally similar it is not surprising that most Homo sapiens value belonging and status above the truth.
Indeed explaining why someone in a position of authority is wrong, rarely aids survival or improves status in a communal society (ape or human).
Of course, politics and values are important, even if they rarely have anything to do with the pursuit of the truth.
*********************
Notes and Links
*As discussed in Part 1 of this series, see
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/defining-the-sceptics-part-1/
The picture of the monkey is from http://encefalus.com/
The day I downloaded the image the homepage read: “You know what, people are stupid. People are utterly stupid. And the problem is that they are so stupid that they don’t even realize it.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“A motivation which is in a way more serious and more avoidable than the nonlearning one, a motivation that hones out new ideas, is what I brutally call the “herd” instinct. It is an instinct which humans have. It presumably dates back to tribal society. I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the “herd instinct” has been a disaster in science. In science what we generally want is diversity -many different avenues need to be pursued. When people pursue the same avenue all together, they tend to shut out the other avenues, and they are not always on the right ones.
If a large proportion of the scientific community in one field is guided by the herd instinct, then they cannot adopt another viewpoint since they cannot imagine that the whole herd will swing around at the same time. It is merely the logistics of the situation. Even if everybody were willing to change course, nobody individually will be sure that he will not be outside the herd when he does so. Perhaps if they could do it as neatly as a flock of starlings, they would. So this inertia-producing effect is a very serious one.
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.
Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one’s understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge. “Yes, I believe that because doesn’t everybody else believe that? ” That is enough justification. It isn’t to me, but it is to very many other people. The sheep in the interior of the herd are well protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog.”
Source – http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!717.entry
What a spectacle – defenders of the old orthodoxy (ie. global climate is immune to man-made influences) trying to dress themselves up as sceptics in the Huxley mode.
And leading the parade – Jennifer, masquerading as a “truth-seeker” while trashing science in the cause of her strident free-market ideology.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Michael,
Which bit did I get wrong?
Also, I understand it was the early free-market economists who inspired aspects of Darwin’s evolution by natural selection, who in turn inspired Huxley.
It is a paradox to me that so many modern biologists claim to believe fundamentally in evolution by natural selection, but are essentially against free-markets.
Michael: “hile trashing science in the cause of her strident free-market ideology.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.”
Is this why new orthodoxy are some times described as the looney left?
Jen,
What was that famous quip in the book 1984 about the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time? Aldous Huxley? Or was it Orwell.
It is a paradox to me that so many modern biologists claim to believe fundamentally in evolution by natural selection, but are essentially against free-markets.
the free market is killing the biology that they want to study? might be a reason?
apart from that, do you mean a paradox like those who believe in free markets not believing in evolution? (that should be the bigger discrepancy)
or those who don t believe in evolution still supporting genetically modified food?
———————-
Indeed if we accept, as Mr Huxley explained, that the brains of apes and humans are fundamentally similar it is not surprising that most Homo sapiens value belonging and status above the truth.
what sort of a definition is this? climate “sceptics” are natural thinkers, while those who share the majority view of scientists expose their apish forefathers?
i fail (again) to see the sceptic approach in this part of the “definition”.
In the last thread, I briefly characterized NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies employees as scientific prostitutes. My impression is that SJT disagrees. Some clarification is in order. Although GISS has many of the trappings of science–including lots of expensive toys and lots of people with initials after their names–it is essentially a propaganda machine, whose generous funding hinges on the success of James “4-Years-to-Save-the-Planet” Hansen’s disgusting fear-mongering tactics. Everyone at GISS knows which side their bread is buttered on.
The Prime Directive (yes, it’s a Star Trek expression) of science–telling the bloody truth at all times when you’re wearing your scientist’s hat–is not a high priority at GISS. If some particular factoid supports the cult of the Flying CO2 Monster, GISS will report it.
If some other factoid calls Doctrine into question, it will most likely be ignored. If the heresy gets a lot of press, then the scientific prostitutes at GISS will attempt to spin it in a different way, if they think that they can get away with it.
I was very specific about mentioning GISS. In all honesty, I can’t make as strong a claim about climate change research in general. Why? Because it’s possible to accept climate change funding and to do serious computer modeling in an area that’s tangentially related to climate. Example: Assume significant warming in a region that’s already marginally warm for growing some particular high-value crop, and use the IPCC’s estimated warming figures to project the effects on agricultural production. It’s not Nobel material, but at least it’s honest, and it may prove to be useful during the next Interglacial.
Sod,
I used to read a lot of Michael Ghiselin, Stephen Jay Gould and others.
Basically Ghiselin, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a lot about the limitations of the human mind, how it processes information. Recognising how emotional, and easily fooled we can be, and why, is a good reason, as Ghiselin suggests, to apply a great deal of self discipline to any problem.
What I am saying is it is often best to assume you are wrong, and take time to logically work through issues until you are convinced through discipline, reason and logic that you are right.
I rather like the last paragraph of his 1974 books that goes:
“Man’s brain, like the rest of him, may be looked upon as a bundle of adaptations. But what it is adapted to has never been self-evident. We are anything but a mechanism set up to perceive the truth for its own sake.
Rather, we have evolved a nervous system that acts in the interest of our gonads, and one attuned to the demands of reproductive competition. If fools are more prolific than wise men, then to that degree folly will be favored by selection. And if ignorance aids in obtaining a mate, then men and women will tend to be ignorant.
In order for so imperfect an instrument as a human brain to perceive the world as it really is, a great deal of self discipline must be imposed.”
PS It is worth working through, applying a great deal of self discipline along the way, why you believe “the free market is killing biology”. If you really care about nature it is worth doing and may take some time and a lot of reading and thinking and discussion.
PS Sod, so NO being a “natural thinker” is not a good idea because we are not naturally sceptical.
To counterpoise this theme, when does skepticism go too far, becoming a species of nay-saying negativism or sheer stubborn stupidity? ‘Nullius in verba’ is the skeptic’s creed — take nobody’s word. But as I’ve never been to Tokyo, should I harbor any doubts that Tokyo exists? An insistence on pure empiricism can be just as mad as out-of-control rationalism. We walk the path to knowledge step by step, induction followed by deduction, and on and on. But we still don’t always know how to coordinate those two feet.
Sod,
And perhaps also to clarify, most apes belong to communal societies and value status.
At least given my own definition of ‘communal society’ and given my knowledge of the group.
And I have just added (ape or human) to the main post after my comment about communal societies to try and clarify this point.
SOD: “the free market is killing the biology that they want to study? might be a reason?”
There are no free markets.
One of the problems with evolution and natural selection is that it simply promotes whatever successfully breeds the fastest. Not tough, not smart, not crafty, not strong, not great longevity or endurance, whatever can breed the fastest successfully.
So, how does that translate into developing highly complex organisms with long, sensitive gestation periods??
By the way SOD, WHAT FREE MARKETS?!?!?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Alan Siddons,
” But as I’ve never been to Tokyo, should I harbor any doubts that Tokyo exists? An insistence on pure empiricism can be just as mad as out-of-control rationalism.”
You use a “real” city for your example. What if your example was Mu or Atlantis?? The point is a reasonable amount of VERIFIABLE DATA to support contentions or theories!!
AGW, or, now AGCC, has been unique in activism, fearmongering, and strawmen being used to overcome lacks in verifiable data.
It was those who developed the research into AGW who were the sceptics. Those who call themselves sceptics today are still stuck in the state of reseach into greenhouse gases of fifty and sixty years ago.
Still, this is entertaining. Haven’t seen such Hubris on display for a quite a while.
The human brain is also capable of learning from experience. And what Siddons and the rest of the climate alarmists continually fail to understand is that many of us have developed a high level of skill in detecting bull$hit masquerading as fact. I acquired my initial expertise in this field by being touted, spived, shonked and bunkoed by every pimp and scammer between Phat Pong Road and Soho. I then fine tuned this ability as a corporate recruiter, with more than 15 years of being lied to, in job applications, by some of the very best bull$hitters in banking, finance and stockbroking.
So my response to the climate alarmists has nothing to do with philosophical perspective. It is based on keen, detailed, and systematic observation of the entire approach of the climatistas in presenting their case. And the signals they send to me ring just about every warning bell possible. The instances in which climate alarmists have had every opportunity to substantiate their claims but have chosen not to, are too numerous to mention. They have had all the time and resources available to allow them to exhibit the unmistakable behaviour of honest men and women but they have conspicuously declined to do so.
The speed and vigour with which they attack the simplest and well meaning questioners, their willingness to defame and deride doubters, their over-reliance on appeals to authority, and a whole suite of key indicators which aught not be divulged to the public, leave me in absolutely no doubt as to what kind of people we are dealing with.
So, no, I am not a sceptic, in the classic sense of the word. The MO of the climate alarmists told me long ago that we need to check every single thing these people say. Their behaviour has made it clear that absolutely nothing these people say can be taken at face value.
So in answer to Siddon’s questioning when scepticism goes to far, I can only repond, when you stop exhibiting the detailed, proven and specific indicators of the seriously ethically challenged. Honesty is a muscle which, when exercised often enough, becomes an involuntary one. And you people have got more than two decades of venality to redress. So get back to me in year 2030 with a track record of fair dealing and we might have grounds for discussion.
Free-marketers on this blog:
” I wanna bulid an eight-lane road” – Jennifer Marohasy .
So to increase road-kills and habitat destruction etc….
” I want a power plant in Serengetti”- J. Hansford
Can’t be any more anti-environmental and anti -biology. It is really amazing that Jen studied biology, why don’t you still stay with the insects like a real scientists would do , there must be a great field with insects that would benefit science , agriculture , malaria and other diseases , now Jen is only a pseudo scientist with climate change denial and other anti enviro stuff…
I liked that Ghiselin quote. Before you brought it up, I wasn’t familiar with him. I’ve thought along similar lines, but hadn’t been able to articulate the idea. (I’m largely a visual thinker.) Hence the instantaneous ring of truth.
I’m not sure about the “natural thinker” part though. In recent centuries, there’s a financial advantage for people who can see through con artists. That particular talent probably involves both analytical ability and people skills.
The financial aspect of being relatively sucker-proof may translate into a reproductive advantage as well. And depending on the nature-nurture balance that contributes to variations in human intelligence, it may be a partial explanation for the Flynn Effect, in which RAW IQ scores have been rising over the years in developed countries–even in the U.S.
“Which bit did I get wrong?
Also, I understand it was the early free-market economists who inspired aspects of Darwin’s evolution by natural selection, who in turn inspired Huxley.</i” – Jen.
‘Aspects’ ie. a part.
And the early free-marketeers suffered from a lack which their contempories cannot claim – experience. Since then, we have had numerous lessons in the the limitations of the free market, ; the great depression, the AEC, the GFC. To hold to to this theory is a victory of ideology over ‘truth seeking’.
“It is a paradox to me that so many modern biologists claim to believe fundamentally in evolution by natural selection, but are essentially against free-markets.“.
What idiocy.
It’s a paradox in the same way that biologists believe in evolution but use technology, ie. it’s not.
Perhaps it stems from a problem with having an ideological tinged view of the theory of natural selection. Some persist in the mistaken view that it’s only about competition, hence it’s attractiveness to the free-market ideologues.
How strange – one could rewrite Motty’s little essay with faux sceptic or denialist in place of climate alarmist or climatistas.
Except with more disgust and venom.
But that would be provocative.
SJT
Clearly you define “sceptic” to mean climate change denier. As for the ‘sceptics” who invented AGW – that is simply pseudoscience, because the primary assumption in AGW is the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase it’s temperature was never observed in the first place in order to develop a greenhouse theory.
This can be easily tested by building a glasshouse, filling it with CO2 and then observing the internal temperature. According to AGW the inside of the glass should reach temperatures measured on Venus.
But as you are driven the dialectical considerations, contradictory empirical fact won’t ever sway your belief.
In fact the only person who I know of who managed to free himself of his prior religious upbringing was Paddy McGuinness when he rejected his Catholicism. So there does remain hope for some of the AGW crowd.
In any case we will have more scientific progress in using the Plasma Model in understanding weather than the existing theories.
Hence I am sceptic in the sense that the existing climate theories are incomplete because they can’t predict any long term weather.
And as the late Tommy Gold pointed out, the medical people still have not taken on board the demonstrated fact that human ears generate a 15Khz signal because they have never learnt the intellectual skills to make sense of it – vis. electromagnetics.
This is why science is never static like secular beliefs or religions that adhere to absolutes.
Actually to make matters worse for you, we have now discovered that radioactive decay isn’t a constant either, so chk chk boom there goes another core universal constant. Gravity has already collapsed on itself as the various black holes some astronomers use to explain anomalous galaxy velocities.
“climate theories are incomplete because they can’t predict any long term weather.” – of course not – even stating that shows what a total doofus you are.
“This can be easily tested by building a glasshouse, filling it with CO2 and then observing the internal temperature.” – no it can’t – and you well know why
“that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase it’s temperature was never observed in the first place in order to develop a greenhouse theory.” – oh I’m sorry you weren’t alive in the PETM. Wish you had been though. Would have been character building
“This can be easily tested by building a glasshouse, filling it with CO2 and then observing the internal temperature. According to AGW the inside of the glass should reach temperatures measured on Venus.”
I keep on saying, if you are going to criticise something, try to understand what you are criticising. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time.
Ah, the climate slime are present, so we shall proceed.
1. “climate theories are incomplete because they can’t predict any long term weather.” – of course not – even stating that shows what a total doofus you are.” Long term weather is climate. Assertion dismissed.
2. ““This can be easily tested by building a glasshouse, filling it with CO2 and then observing the internal temperature.” – no it can’t – and you well know why”. But does not explain the reasons, and hence is guilty of (another) unsubstantiated assertion.
3. “that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase it’s temperature was never observed in the first place in order to develop a greenhouse theory.” – oh I’m sorry you weren’t alive in the PETM. Wish you had been though. Would have been character building”.
No one in the current discussion was, but then confusing history with the present creates new possibilities of psychic aberration.
And then SJT : “I keep on saying, if you are going to criticise something, try to understand what you are criticising. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time.”
Who was criticizing?
I wonder is Luke and SJT could be marketed as another Stan and Ollie act? Intellectually probable – Luke is a little like Stan and SJT very much like Ollie.
To think, Jen sees Hissink as a modern day Huxley. Thank God the poor man is dead.
Just a reminder – Huxley defended a revolutionary theory against the nay-sayers. That’s you Jen et al.
Huxley looked at the scientific arguments and found them compelling. Here, we have Hissink, who obviously doesn’t even know what they are.
I get $10 – I told you we’d get him to retype it SJT ! hahahahahaha
We’re in your head Louis – we’ve breached the cortical perimeter – “hey SJT there’s so much spare room in here” “there’s only a small peanut like organ” hahahahaha
Anyway – “Long term weather is climate.” The fact that you wrote that again shows you’re less than clueless. Time to change the bumper sticker – “Licence Hissinks – not guns” hahahahahaha
Luke,
You have out foxed your self.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate
“The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
“Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, atmospheric pressure, winds, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time”
How do you believe ‘climate’ manifests itself?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_%27climate%27
“Climate is the condition of weather of one place over a long period of time.”
Luke, you are much, much less clever than you wish. But you and your ilk are the best salesmen for a skeptical take on AGW that I can imagine.
Please, keep up the good work.
BTW, it is obvious to everyone here that you know nearly nothing about this issue. You are a conclusion wrapped in an attitude pretending to have some wisdom.
Jen you say being a skeptic makes one an outsider. I would ask what is it like to be an insider? My lack of religion and disinterest in much of what others think important certainly makes me an outsider.
Thanks DHMO.
Interestingly ‘skeptics’ unlike ‘greens’ are prepared to admit to some defining characteristics. And it sounds like you are, what Huxley would consider, a true sceptic.
Where you considered a trouble maker at school?
Clearly you define “sceptic” to mean climate change denier. As for the ’sceptics” who invented AGW – that is simply pseudoscience, because the primary assumption in AGW is the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase it’s temperature was never observed in the first place in order to develop a greenhouse theory.
the temperature change is real and well observed.
apart from that, as i said before, you know absolutely nothing about scientific theory. you might want to look at the inductive and the deductive method…
talking about pseudo science, you are obviously an expert:
http://aig.org.au/assets/31/AIGnewsNov06.pdf#page=12
abiotic oil (page 16)
electric discharge causing 1 km diameter craters on mars (page 17. how much glass did that Rover find?)
and the Beck theory of massive fluctuation of CO2 in the atmosphere, right up to the moment when accurate measurement started.. (page 6)
this can be easily tested by building a glasshouse, filling it with CO2 and then observing the internal temperature. According to AGW the inside of the glass should reach temperatures measured on Venus.
an experiment like that is described in the physics school book right in front of me. experimental verification of the greenhouse effect of CO2 is easy for school boys and girls.
Yes I may somehow have known that Hunstbury.
But alas you miss the subtlety of my point. You can ponder why as an exercise. We’ll see how you go. Yourself and Louis have just shown your complete intellectual bankruptcy of the issue. I’m sorry.
” Where you considered a trouble maker at school?” – Jennifer Marohasy stating that trouble makers at school are a positive character???
Hmmm, as usual lot of inconsistency here , but trouble makers like Greenpeace are labelled as ecoterrorists.
Give it a break , Lady! You’re a clown plus an eco vandal!!!
Luke,
It is not all clear that you have a clue as to what you are talking about, from your demonstrated communication skills.
Of course the delicate subtlety of your position means you never have to give direct answers.
Lewis happened to use the correct definition of climate, and you aree too dim to recognize it.
Sort of like Hansen and Gore and the rest of the high and mighty of AGW not being able to handle debate or even less-than-fawning questions.
BTW,
An Australian study has just been released showing Antarctica is not breaking up. Another load of bilge from you AGW scammers bites the dust.
You are all rather predictable, in a boring sort of way.
Ciao,
Jen
I don’t think so but I certainly got into trouble with adults for not agreeing to everything. I went to a country primary school of 20 students total in the fifties and then a high school in Bowral NSW. This meant about two and half hours travel a day. Mainly a time of boredom and perhaps depression. I gained a leaving (higher school) certificate doing part time study. I also did my degree part time. I think a total lack of religion and little interest in spectator sport made me and outsider. Did that also make me a skeptic? While others of my generation listened to the Beatles and watched football I listened to Beethoven and read books on philosophy. I was never taught to accept authority of someone like a priest. Also Aldous Huxley wrote about someone being the outsider because they were the fat kid. Well there you go another reason I was an outsider. So what comes first am I a skeptic because I am an outsider or am I an outsider because I am a skeptic?
“Also, I understand it was the early free-market economists who inspired aspects of Darwin’s evolution by natural selection”
Jaw makes unscheduled and extremely abrupt connection with floor.
Jennifer, evidence, please.
hmmmm let’s see Huntsbugga – hmmmmm
no I think we’ll stick with the “you’re a moron” angle.
Think about it buga-lugs – GCMs only simulate future climate states – they’re not weather forecasts are they. If you think that – and yourself and Louie the Dipteran pestoid do – well mate you came down in the last shower. Last shower – get it – hahahahahahaha
Golly gee – after all this time they’re running the ol’ climate/weather scam – sigh ….
Yes, Luke, you could, indeed, change the terms in my post above, from “climate alarmists” to “sceptics” and it may well appear credible to the ignorant. But you miss the point. It would no longer have a grain of truth in it. It would be a false and entirely misleading statement. But of course, all you and your kind are concerned with is an appearance of plausibility, rather than a representation of fact.
You still don’t get it, do you, dopey wan? You make a casual reference to altering a statement to make it convey the direct opposite meaning to the original and you wonder why we don’t believe a single word you say. You are what you do, and what you do is lie, cheat and steal.
Luke,
Thank you for proving my point.
You really do not know what you are talking about.
So now all of the definitions are wrong.
Do you really think climate manifests itself as something besides weather?
Oh, yeah, it manifests itself as GCM runs.
AGW is the side running the climate/weather scam from day one to right now.
Thanks for the laugh, Luke. I thought behind the bluster was a keen wit. Instead there is just………Chauncey Gardner with a bad attitude.
Jeremy C,
Maybe your jaw should not be on the floor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
This was a very popular concept, back when eugenics and evolution and raw capitalism were mixed together in an ugly brew.
Don’t kid yourself.
No Hunter – definitions are fine.
Luke,
OK. So the definitions are fine.
When turning a bicycle to the left, one first turns the front wheel to the right.
I think a true skeptic is first a believer. One first accepts the hypothesis and considers where it will lead. If it leads to an impossible result then the skeptic rejects the hypothesis. There are a lot of simple tests that a new idea has to pass. Is mass and energy conserved? Violate the second law? Momentum conserved? Is someone offering me a large profit with little investment and little risk? Lots of little rules of science and human behavior.
The AGW hypothesis? May be true….Why did it not happen in the past? Large volcanoes spew out megatons of CO2. Sure we get cooling from the dust, but the dust is gone in three years and were are told the CO2 will last for many decades. Why did that never lead to a runaway greenhouse?
If the hypothesis is true, then this result will or would have happened. If the consequence is falsified then the hypothesis is too.
I love the answer to the hypothesis that the CERN collider could create a black hole that would eat the Earth. The answer is that there are cosmic rays much more energetic than the collider can produce. We see energies as high as 4 x10^19 eV in single cosmic ray protons and this is over 1,000,000 times the energy of the new collider. These cosmic rays are so rare we see about one per century per square mile. But the moon is still there and one of these cosmic rays hits it about every four minutes without any atmosphere in the way. No need to do any complex calculation here. First accept the hypothesis that a micro black hole could form and then show the consequence of it eating the Earth could not happen because it has not happened.
I was a somewhat believer in the AGW hypothesis until I started some serious reading and found how Steve McIntyre had destroyed Michael Mann’s papers on the “hockey stick” Once the historical record was shown to have higher temperatures in the historical past, AGW seems silly.
Back to the bicycle. To turn left, you first make the bike lean left. You do this by turning the front wheel a little to the right. Its so instinctive you might not realize how it works.
“I was a somewhat believer in the AGW hypothesis until I started some serious reading and found how Steve McIntyre had destroyed Michael Mann’s papers on the “hockey stick” Once the historical record was shown to have higher temperatures in the historical past, AGW seems silly.”
But the projected temperatures from AGW will be much higher than anything Loehle has seen in the past. His highest anomoly is 0.6C, we are looking at 3.0C. McIntyre runs a fine line in smear and innuendo, when you look at the actual claim, it is nothing.
“The AGW hypothesis? May be true….Why did it not happen in the past? Large volcanoes spew out megatons of CO2. Sure we get cooling from the dust, but the dust is gone in three years and were are told the CO2 will last for many decades. Why did that never lead to a runaway greenhouse?”
So you don’t know these answers. Perhaps you should be finding them out before passing judgement. If large volcanoes are spewing out megatons of CO2, we are dealing with gigatons of anthropogenic CO2, for example.
Gary P you may of read this http:\\www.climateaudit.org\pdf\others7142006_Wegman_Report.pdf but if not it is really worth the read. It shows clearly why Plimer believes the IPCC and Mann should be charged with fraud. It is a wonder to me that anyone that could state “McIntyre runs a fine line in smear and innuendo, when you look at the actual claim, it is nothing” has the intelligence to come in from the rain. Either they have never read McIntyre’s blog or they are lying maybe both.
What the geological record tells us is that the AGW argument is not so silly it is irrelevant. Ian Plimer’s book is really worth reading it shows how pathetically stupid the whole argument is. The climate of the past millions of years is unexplained. It is valid to reject an argument because it is not supported by the past. It is possible to enter an ice age when the CO2 is many 1000s of PPM.
(Third try on this, hope it works)
Some interesting stuff on skeptics: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=529
SJT:
“But the projected temperatures from AGW will be much higher than anything Loehle has seen in the past. His highest anomoly is 0.6C, we are looking at 3.0C. McIntyre runs a fine line in smear and innuendo, when you look at the actual claim, it is nothing.”
You, sir, run a thick line of pure bullshit.
“What the geological record tells us is that the AGW argument is not so silly it is irrelevant. Ian Plimer’s book is really worth reading it shows how pathetically stupid the whole argument is. The climate of the past millions of years is unexplained. It is valid to reject an argument because it is not supported by the past. It is possible to enter an ice age when the CO2 is many 1000s of PPM.”
Plimer misrepresents the case for AGW, to the extent that he is deceptive. No climate scientists have ever said that CO2 is the only, or the strongest, forcing for climate. It just happens to be at the present.
SJT:
More bullshit:
“Plimer misrepresents the case for AGW, to the extent that he is deceptive. No climate scientists have ever said that CO2 is the only, or the strongest, forcing for climate. It just happens to be at the present.”
Do you have a reference for this prevarication?
SJT,
You are very carefully parsing your words, and not increasing your credibility at all.
Why are you so sensitive to admitting what is standard AGW dogma?
CO2 has been the bad gas forever, according to AGW teachings.
http://www.physorg.com/news109258277.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ancient-Glaciation-Linked-to-a-Drop-in-Carbon-Dioxide-Due-to-Appalachian-Uplift-38832.shtml
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44289/story.htm
It really seems that you hate those who dare disagree with AGW so much that you simply reject anything they say out of hand. I am sure that makes you feel good, but it leaves you rather vulnerable to facts.
Maybe because the disconnect between AGW dogma and reality is very great, and does not near much scrutiny:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/yu-dsa062205.php
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/carbon-dioxide-rich-atmosphere-in-ancient-ice-age/
AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to evolution: political, popular, dangerous and wrong.
BTW, is it not odd that any critic of AGW is always found, by AGW believers, to be corrupt, lying and and an all around bad guy? There is not one skeptic whom AGW believers do not find to be wicked. No good will at all. No matter the accomplishment, no matter their CV. Once they question AGW , they are evil.
Do you understand the implication of that, SJT?
Read the IPCC report. It is not prevarication, it just stating the results of the evidence.
Lewis Hissink: “What was that famous quip in the book 1984 about the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time? Aldous Huxley? Or was it Orwell.”
“The Sentimentalist, roughly speaking, is the man who wants to eat his cake and have it. He has no sense of honor about ideas; he will not see that one must pay for an idea as well as for anything else. He will have them all at once in one wild intellectual harem, no matter how much they quarrel and contradict each other.” — G.K. Chesterton, 1874-1936
Hmmm deceptive hey. Glaciation Ordovician-Silurian CO2 4000 ppmv, Jurassic-Cretaceous 2000ppmv. Oh sorry back then CO2 wasn’t important. It’s only human CO2 that causes warming but how does Gaia know? We could have ten times more CO2 as long as humans don’t produce it.
Jen do you have a Stossel shovel we need to muck out the BS on this blog.
What moronic drivel DHMO – what solar insolation, with continents in what configuration, with what circulation systems, with what species.
This is indicative of the simplicity of the denialist mind. Pathetic.
SJT wrote:
“But the projected temperatures from AGW will be much higher than anything Loehle has seen in the past. His highest anomoly is 0.6C, we are looking at 3.0C.”
Looking at 3.0deg? No, we’re not _looking_ at 3 deg, we’re looking at a model output (so flakey they use the word ‘projection’ rather than ‘prediction’ to give themselves more wriggle room when things don’t pan out) that may or may not be accurate within plus or minus several degrees, based on parametised inputs which may or may not be correct in magnitude or even sign, kept vaguely in the realm of realistic scenarios by eliminating runs which run away to Venus and based on initial conditions which may or may not be accurate to plus or minus several degrees and then assessed against a temperature record which may or may not be accurate within 2 degrees.
SJT wrote:
“Read the IPCC report. It is not prevarication, it just stating the results of the evidence.”
Done that. My favourite bit is where the authors show that graph of forcings. Did you see where they admit that their understanding of the feedback from clouds is low (up from very low on this latest report without, as far as I have seen, any studies which reduced their level of ignorance)? And how the cloud feedback is maybe as big as their perfectly understood forcing from anthropogenic CO2? So the evidence is that we’re not yet sure about what’s going on.
Assuming that you are sincere in trying to change peoples’ minds about AGW, may I give you a bit of advice? Politeness is a most telling weapon in discourse — politely provide your evidence, politely refute errors that others propagate, politely contradict untruth. It works and also prevents you looking like a dickhead.
JF
SJT,
Dodge and weave all you want, but the IPCC is not the only voice in climate science.
It is not the end all of climate science. Unless climate science wants to go ahead and make it clear that in the age of AGW it is politics, not science, that is running things.
Luke, simply waving your hands and making rude gestures is not generally considered a strong defense.
Unless of course we missed the IPCC report that talks about how CO2 today is chemically different than CO2 of yesteryear.
My impression is that there are very few real sceptics in this world. I suppose that it is quite human (or homimid?) to be less sceptic about things one knows – or thinks one knows – than what is unknown and also less sceptic if one has a direct (financial, moral, faith, political) interest in something than not (or reverse).
The reactions here are typical: the warmers are sceptic for anything that is not 100% what the “concensus” says and the “sceptics” embrace any pet theory that put doubts on any tiny part of the AGW theory, even if that part is proven as much as things can be proven by observations…
Please to all, as Julian Flood already said, a little more respect for each other ideas would do wonders (for both sides), so that we may be sceptic about everything said by friends and foes, but have a discussion on real figures and facts, not (alleged) intentions, payrolls and (lack of) knowledge…
Luke
“What moronic drivel DHMO – what solar insolation, with continents in what configuration, with what circulation systems, with what species.
This is indicative of the simplicity of the denialist mind. Pathetic.
”
Well you have just made that charge against Ian Plimer for that is what he is saying. Your suggestion that it was other factors is precisely the point. The world temperature is relatively unaffected by CO2 it is something else. Whoever you are I think he might no more than yourself. Your lack of logic and invective is astounding. As hunter says keep up the good work as you continue to harm the AGW side good on you. I have thought of reporting you to Monbiot since you do so much harm to the AGW argument but hell while you continue this way it is so good.
Perhaps someone on this blog can recommend a competent psychiatrist for you.
“Assuming that you are sincere in trying to change peoples’ minds about AGW, may I give you a bit of advice? Politeness is a most telling weapon in discourse — politely provide your evidence, politely refute errors that others propagate, politely contradict untruth. It works and also prevents you looking like a dickhead.”
You haven’t been around here much? This is a libertarian freedom of speech zone, where people have been free to abuse me since I first turned up. I don’t take that lying down. If Jen wants to raise the standard of debate, that’s her call. I’ll be more than happy to comply. As to convincing people and changing their minds, you won’t ever see that happen here. It doesn’t work, it just makes you an object of ridicule and a member of a secret conspiracy to rule the world and destroy capitalism. Being polite just makes it more enjoyable for them.
Will: “This is a libertarian freedom of speech zone, where people have been free to abuse me since I first turned up. ”
That’s about what you can expect if yo show pretending to know more than you, people around here saw through that pretty quickly.
You only have yourself to blame for that. You shouldn’t blame others for your failings.